On 18 March, the Netherlands heads to the polls for the 2026 municipal elections. Local democracy, close to home. Your neighbourhood, your municipality, your vote. But what if political ads you see on Facebook or Instagram have no legal right to appear on your timeline? And what if the platform showing those ads knows exactly that it is not allowed and does nothing about it?
The Justice for Prosperity foundation (JfP) did not only investigate illegal political ads. We also mapped their total reach.
European Political Advertising Regulation
Our investigation was prompted by the European Political Advertising Regulation (PAR), a law requiring online political ads to be transparent: who pays for them, and who is being targeted? The reasoning behind this is simple but fundamental. When political parties try to influence you, you have the right to know how and by whom.
Major tech companies like Meta and Google found these transparency obligations too burdensome and chose to simply ban political advertising on their platforms in the European Union altogether. Enforcing that ban is their responsibility.
How Big Tech bent the law to its will
Rather than making their advertising systems transparent as the legislation requires, platforms like Meta and Google chose a different way out. They wrote into their own terms of service that political ads are simply prohibited on their EU platforms. No political advertising, so no transparency obligations either. Problem solved, or so it seemed.
But appearances are deceiving.
Meta's enforcement falls short
Our investigation shows that Meta structurally fails to enforce its own self-imposed ban. Justice for Prosperity, along with the University of Amsterdam and investigator Fabio Votta, identified hundreds of ads that should never have appeared online under Meta’s own rules. Political ads, visible to everyone, placed on pages that Meta’s own platform registers as channels of political parties.
That last detail is crucial. Meta already holds the information needed to identify and block these ads. Our data shows that more than half of all ads come from pages that have categorised themselves as a “political party.” The technical barrier to intervening is therefore extremely low. Yet it does not happen. This is not a question of inability. It looks more like a question of unwillingness. Meta has a financial interest in keeping these ads online, since that is what it gets paid for.
Of the 517 ads JfP identified, only 80 have been removed. That is just 15% of all illegal ads. The remaining 85% are still online, giving an unfair advantage to the political parties that place them. Looking at who places the ads, 88% come from local parties.
The remaining 12% comes primarily from local branches and divisions of national political parties. JfP identified 72 unique advertisers in total. Our dataset shows that local branches of GroenLinks-PvdA together place the most illegal ads on Meta, followed by CDA, D66, SP, SGP, ChristenUnie, VVD, FvD, BBB and PVV.
Although these parties bear their own responsibility here, Meta is ultimately responsible for what political advertising appears on Instagram and Facebook. One of the Dutch regulators, the Dutch Data Protection Authority, sent warning letters to around 40 political parties over these ads.
Wide reach for rule-breakers
After identifying the political ads, JfP went further. We mapped the reach these ads generated. The 517 ads we found have a combined total reach of 1,774,210. So far. As a voter, this means concretely that you have seen or may yet see illegal political ads on Facebook or Instagram. You now also know that this is, to put it mildly, not acceptable behaviour from those placing them. This kind of illegal influence has no place in a healthy democracy. Which brings us to what follows.
An uneven playing field
Parties and political actors that do comply with the rules are disadvantaged as a result. Those who operate within the boundaries of the law have fewer options than those who cross those boundaries without consequences. This creates an uneven playing field in the run-up to the 2026 municipal elections, and an uneven playing field is a direct threat to fair democratic competition.
Meta's response, and what happened next
In response to questions from Nieuwsuur about these illegal ads, Meta stated that ads about social issues, elections and politics in the EU violate their policy. A spokesperson said protecting election integrity is a priority and that the company had already taken action against a number of ads violating the policy.
That response sounds reassuring, but Justice for Prosperity has continued to find illegal political ads after this statement appeared. Our investigation shows that only 15% of illegal ads have been removed. Words about priorities have clearly not yet resulted in structural enforcement.
Our recommendations
Based on our investigation, we recommend that Meta consistently enforces its own rules on political advertising. The data needed to identify political ads from registered political social media channels already exists within Meta’s own systems. Since more than half of the channels we investigated are registered as social media channels of political parties, we conclude that automated enforcement is technically feasible and achievable in the short term.
We also look to the role of Dutch regulators. Both the Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP) and the Media Authority have a role in overseeing compliance with the PAR. In the week before the municipal elections, the AP already sent warning letters to around 40 political parties and previously informed political parties through a 27-page guidance document. The question is whether local parties and branches, which often have no data protection officer, actually read and understand that guidance. It is also worth asking whether all these violations genuinely stem from ignorance. It is not inconceivable that some have weighed the options and decided the benefits of advertising outweigh the risks. JfP calls for clarification on advertising on Meta, TikTok and Google: “Political ads must no longer be permitted on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok for as long as these platforms cannot guarantee the transparency requirements of the PAR.”
The distinction between education and enforcement matters. Actual enforcement of this European legislation lies with Irish regulators, since Meta is based in Ireland. Current developments show that these regulators are not doing this well or cannot handle the workload.
Our recommendation to national political parties is simple. Contact all local and regional teams and remind them, once more if necessary, that political advertising is not permitted on Meta and Google.
The step towards structural enforcement by Meta is technically small. We continue to monitor developments in the run-up to 18 March 2026. “The foundation for well-informed voters lies in a transparent media landscape, a landscape shaped to a significant degree by the choices platforms like Meta make every day.”
The Justice for Prosperity foundation is an independent investigative platform focused on mapping social manipulation and influence. Here you will find our report on interference during the Dutch municipal elections of 18 March 2026.
